IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.5206 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. (BY SRI B. L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI S. BASAVARAJU SON OF LATE SUBBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.34/3, II FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, RAGJHAVEDRA COLONY, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU-560 018, AT PRESENT AT NO.101/102, CHANDRAGIRI III CROSS, M.S. LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR VI PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.
(BY SRI S.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.3844 OF 2012 (S-RES) AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3844 of 2012, permitting the writ petitioner to make a representation and consequently directing the appellant-Board to consider the same in accordance with law, the respondent therein has filed the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in ordering for reconsideration of the case of the respondent- writ petitioner. That the material on record would clearly indicate that the writ petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
3. The same is disputed to by the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. However, on hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. What the learned Single Judge has directed is to consider the representation to be filed by the writ petitioner. There is no mandate to grant the representation. The appellant- Board is always at liberty to reject or grant the representation made. It is entirely the discretion of the appellant-Board. Hence, we find no good ground to interfere.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/- CT:SM